Astrotripper

Joined on Jul 12, 2013

Comments

Total: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Robjwilli: Might make me re-think my micro four-thirds option for travel. This plus a small D3300/3400 with 18-55 and 50 1.8D would be an inexpensive and lightweight APSC bundle.

@ozturert
There is nothing in Micro 4/3 that would be a competition on price for this or the Canon. There are no affordable UWAs for MFT.

Oly 9-18 is a whooping $600, and that's already lower than the MSRP of $700. Either way, it is normally around twice as expensive as similar lenses from Canon or Nikon. I managed to get mine for less than 400 EUR, but I was extremely lucky to manage that. And while it's a pretty good lens, it's not worth $700 or even $600, no matter how you slice it.

So yeah, Nikon users should be really with this release. Hopefully the lens is good.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 09:33 UTC

It's a cheap smartphone with a cheap camera module. The only "original" thing about it is a piece of plastic "faux lens barrel" glued onto the back.

How I wish Panasonic would evolve their CM1 concept. That was actually something promising and needed maybe one more iteration to be really good. With Android adding support for wide gamut displays and color management, you could really do some serious stuff with it one day.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 06:59 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Wow, $2200 for a lens and it's not even weather resistant?

Yes, I wrote weather resistant, which for me means at least splashproof (the most common hazard for me), with dustproof and freezeproof completing the picture. If you're living in California it might be dustproof that's the most important, while for someone in Finland probably freezeproof would be a must. but there has to be SOMETHING for it to be considered weather resistant.

How do you expect a lens that is not even moisture proof to be weather resistant in any capacity? Like, this literally means that you cannot expect it to work reliably (or worst case scenario - survive) during a trip to the tropics. Not that I would expect it to fail, but if it does, Sony told you it could, so...

And yes, some manufacturers do claim their lenses and cameras are dustproof, splashproof, freezeproof (and/or depending on company and product). Without asterisks attached to those terms.

So when Sony writes "it's moisture and dust -resistant but not -proof" I say: "so is my $100 plastic kit lens".

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Wow, $2200 for a lens and it's not even weather resistant?

What's there to read?

The press release clearly states: "Not guaranteed to be 100% dust and moisture proof."

Which means it is not even dust and moisture proof. This is MOISTURE. Not rain. Not drizzle. Not water splashing. MOISTURE.

So how can it be weather resistant? Not to mention it would also have to be freezeproof and splashproof to qualify as weather resistant. At least in my book.

But maybe my expectations are too high of expensive high end gear?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 19:21 UTC

Wow, $2200 for a lens and it's not even weather resistant?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 19:05 UTC as 13th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: 8K nice! So Panasonic will ditch m43 finally? Nice to know GH5 is last of it's kind.

8K simply requires bigger sensor, probably bigger than APS-C. The only 8K camera sensor today is in Sony A7R2 although it cannot shoot 8K video. However e see the need for 42MP in 3:2 ratio. 43 ratio would need to be around 50MP which means diffraction artifacts at f/2.8......

BTW, Kiril, you are aware of the Bayer CFA on the sensors, right?

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: 8K nice! So Panasonic will ditch m43 finally? Nice to know GH5 is last of it's kind.

8K simply requires bigger sensor, probably bigger than APS-C. The only 8K camera sensor today is in Sony A7R2 although it cannot shoot 8K video. However e see the need for 42MP in 3:2 ratio. 43 ratio would need to be around 50MP which means diffraction artifacts at f/2.8......

Kiril, there's no way f/4 would already be problematic, much less f/2.8.

Currently, for 16mp 4/3 sensor, f/11 is where you are diffraction limited. And I'm not talking about theory, but the effect observable on actual photos and MTF measurements. At f/8, MTFs from 16mp sensors are still higher than from 12mp sensors. Only at f/11 they remain within a margin of error. The same is true of 20mp sensor vs 16mp sensor. So on 40mp sensor, that boundary would be somewhere around f/5.6, not f/2.8.

As for actual photos, f/11 is where things start to go downhill (a reason High Res mode is limited to f/8). And I'm pretty sure you would not notice that on 4K video anyway.

So no, most Micro 4/3 lenses will not be useless on a 40mp sensor. Most MFT primes reach peak sharpness around f/2.8 while f/2.8 zooms around f/4. And to put things in perspective, pretty much every MFT lens is sharper wide open than at this diffraction limited f/11.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: 8K nice! So Panasonic will ditch m43 finally? Nice to know GH5 is last of it's kind.

8K simply requires bigger sensor, probably bigger than APS-C. The only 8K camera sensor today is in Sony A7R2 although it cannot shoot 8K video. However e see the need for 42MP in 3:2 ratio. 43 ratio would need to be around 50MP which means diffraction artifacts at f/2.8......

Kiril, how did you arrive at the conclusion that 50mp on 4/3 sensor would be useless? Are cameras with 20mp 1" sensors useless? And they do 4K at pixel pitch that is similar to what 40mp 4/3 sensor would be. How can that be? Magic?

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: 8K nice! So Panasonic will ditch m43 finally? Nice to know GH5 is last of it's kind.

8K simply requires bigger sensor, probably bigger than APS-C. The only 8K camera sensor today is in Sony A7R2 although it cannot shoot 8K video. However e see the need for 42MP in 3:2 ratio. 43 ratio would need to be around 50MP which means diffraction artifacts at f/2.8......

Gimli, what were the improvements because of the BSI on that 1" sensor? Because I can't see any, to be honest.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

norman shearer: Nice to see Olympus showing Sony how you should support your customers. Watch and learn Sony.

@leonche64
What does feature set at launch have to do with providing post launch support?

Olympus cameras have features that Sony cameras do not have and vice versa. So your argument doesn't really make sense.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 13:34 UTC

"Improved viewfinder color reproduction"

Nice. While it was not as jarring to me as for others, it was still disappointing to see this on such a camera. Hopefully this update really fixes this issue. Will probably try it today.

"Improved stability for battery level display for the E-M1 Mark II"

Another nice. It was super annoying to see it flashing red only to show 47% after powering cycling the camera. In its current form the battery level display is not all that useful. Hopefully that's gonna change with this update.

Nice to see Olympus addressing users' problems like that.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 07:19 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

StephanBG: Not supporting older cameras is a symptom of a bad software development process, configuration mangement process and architecture.

As has been seen with Nikon, some camera companies are good at hardware but very bad at software. This bites them with mobile apps, modern CAF etc.

Olympus should get it's camera software architecture fixed and support more cameras with updates.

??? Maybe you missed the fact that those updates are not only for the newest E-M1 Mark II, but also for PEN-F (over a year old) and E-M5 Mark II (over two years old).

Do you expect them to bring those features to cameras that are long out of production?

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

scoobysnapstories: the competition was fair, it was his own competition, people voted for his work so he wins. nothing wrong with that. sign. =)

But I bet if you were told that your entries would have to compete with those of the organizers and judges, you'd think twice about shelling out $25 to enter, wouldn't you?

And how do you know it was fair, anyway?

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 06:22 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

Yeah, I just looked into the full specs on Sony website. 5 fps. WOW.

There are only three options now:
1. The specs contain an error
2. This is a joke
3. This electronic shutter in a9 is truly revolutional

I certainly do hope for 3, but with Sony, I will believe it when I see it and not a second sooner.

As for actual sport shooting cameras, they do 12 fps as far as I know. Boostable to 14fps with some tricks, I think.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but using electronic shutter for shooting fast moving action under artificial lighting of sporting venues sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. It really needs to be very, very close to a speed of a mechanical shutter to be a viable alternative.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

I remember hearing the same regarding A6500. Turned out to be a lot of hype.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:34 UTC

Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:15 UTC as 102nd comment | 6 replies

Fuji is on fire :-)

By now I'm pretty certain that this UWA will be very impressive. Hope Hassy will give Fuji some competition with their own new releases as well. Intetesting times either way.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 08:48 UTC as 19th comment
On article Fujifilm GF 120mm F4 Macro sample gallery (113 comments in total)

Those new medium format lenses are amazing. This is no exception.

But what does Fuji have against macro lenses? This is yet another Fuji "macro" lens that isn't all that macro. Why not 1:1?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:07 UTC as 8th comment | 8 replies
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: The "we are mainly stills-oriented" mantra needs to end right now. It is damaging and dangerous. It's not a message you want to broadcast to the world. Unless you want to slip into irrelevance.

I get it. They know their strengths and have their priorities. But acting as if video is something that can still be treated as a necessary evil is suicidal. And not to mention this attitude sells short the efforts of Olympus engineers who did a pretty fine job of making sure Olympus has a camera with usable video in their lineup. And it was about time. It was really a last chance for Oly to catch up.

Case in point: I would absolutely not have bought E-M1 Mark II if it had not provided decent video recording capability. And I am both a stills shooter and Olympus user. But as it turns out, shooting video is actually pretty fun. I think so far I have spent more time filming with it than taking photos.

Still, I expect improvements to video side of things during the lifetime of the Mark II. AF...

@Karroly
How does the inclusion of video features on E-M1 Mark II make it a worse stills camera? Can you tell us?

And why on earth would you think that a specialised niche product like a stills-only camera would be less expensive?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 07:10 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: The "we are mainly stills-oriented" mantra needs to end right now. It is damaging and dangerous. It's not a message you want to broadcast to the world. Unless you want to slip into irrelevance.

I get it. They know their strengths and have their priorities. But acting as if video is something that can still be treated as a necessary evil is suicidal. And not to mention this attitude sells short the efforts of Olympus engineers who did a pretty fine job of making sure Olympus has a camera with usable video in their lineup. And it was about time. It was really a last chance for Oly to catch up.

Case in point: I would absolutely not have bought E-M1 Mark II if it had not provided decent video recording capability. And I am both a stills shooter and Olympus user. But as it turns out, shooting video is actually pretty fun. I think so far I have spent more time filming with it than taking photos.

Still, I expect improvements to video side of things during the lifetime of the Mark II. AF...

You completely missed my point. I do not expect Olympus to create a professional grade video equipment. Nor do I want them to. I do not expect the same level of video capability as Panasonic offers. And I'm not asking for it. It's about the attitude demonstrated publicly.

This is 2017. You cannot just brush the video aspects aside and pretend it does not matter. And it's pretty obvious looking at E-M1.2 that Olympus is not stupid enough to do that. But then why repeating the "we're for stills" mantra? What good does repeating this do apart from communicating to the world that you think video does not matter much. And that while you add competent video capabilities to your cameras?

IMHO, it will do Olympus no good, boxing themselves like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
Total: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »